Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Cassidy Cody Johnson was charged with gross sexual imposition, luring minors by computer, and possession of prohibited materials in August 2024. Johnson and the State reached a plea agreement where Johnson would plead guilty to the first and third charges, resulting in a 50-year sentence with 25 years suspended for the first charge and a concurrent 5-year sentence for the third charge. The second charge was dismissed. The district court accepted the plea agreement, and Johnson was sentenced accordingly. Johnson appealed the judgment.The District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, accepted the plea agreement and imposed the sentence. Johnson appealed, arguing that the district court erred by sentencing him to 25 years on the gross sexual imposition charge, imposing an unreasonable lifetime no-contact order and lifetime sexual offender registration, and failing to ensure his plea was knowing and voluntary. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not negotiating a better plea agreement or taking the case to trial.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and applied the abuse of discretion standard. The court found that Johnson's sentence was within the statutory limits and resulted from a negotiated plea agreement. Johnson did not move to withdraw his plea or establish a manifest injustice. The court also declined to review Johnson's argument about the lifetime sexual offender registration because it was raised for the first time during oral argument on appeal. The court found that the district court did consider mitigating factors and did not abuse its discretion. Additionally, the court held that Johnson waived appellate review of his claim regarding the N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 advisory by not objecting or moving to withdraw his plea. The court also declined to address Johnson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal due to the inadequacy of the record.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Grant Grensteiner was charged with 17 counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and 18 counts of theft of property after a traffic stop led to the discovery of stolen firearms and other items. Grensteiner, a passenger in the vehicle, moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause to search the towed vehicle. The district court denied the motion, finding traffic violations justified the stop and probable cause extended to the towed vehicle due to a drug detection dog's alert.The district court held a jury trial, and Grensteiner moved for a judgment of acquittal after the State's case-in-chief, which was denied. The jury found him guilty on all counts. Grensteiner appealed, arguing the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and the State committed prosecutorial misconduct.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that the traffic violations provided a lawful basis for the stop and the probable cause to search the towing vehicle extended to the towed vehicle. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Grensteiner's convictions, noting his control over the towed vehicle and the presence of stolen items. Additionally, the court concluded that the State's questioning of a detective did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct or improperly shift the burden of proof to Grensteiner. The court emphasized that the jury instructions clearly stated the State's burden of proof and the defendant's presumption of innocence. View "State v. Grensteiner" on Justia Law

Bradley Graff was charged with gross sexual imposition involving a victim under the age of 15. Before the trial, the district court ruled that Graff's prior convictions and status as a sex offender would be inadmissible. During the trial, the State's examination of a witness violated this order, leading to a mistrial and dismissal with prejudice.The State appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the charge with prejudice without properly determining whether the State acted in bad faith or through prosecutorial misconduct. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the district court to determine if there was clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or prosecutorial misconduct and to consider lesser sanctions.On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct but did not act maliciously or attempt to delay the trial. The court determined that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate. Graff appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by not dismissing the case with prejudice.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The court found that the district court's decision was based on a rational mental process and did not misinterpret or misapply the law. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case without prejudice, concluding that the district court did not act arbitrarily, unconscionably, or unreasonably. View "State v. Graff" on Justia Law

Alexander Gothberg called 911, reporting that his two-year-old child had possibly overdosed on fentanyl. When officers arrived, Gothberg opened his apartment door, holding the child, and described the situation while walking back into the apartment. The officers followed him inside, believing they were to assist the child. Gothberg explained that he had administered Narcan and performed CPR on the child, who then regained consciousness. The officers observed the apartment in disarray and found evidence of drug use. Gothberg consented to the officers looking around the apartment and disclosed the presence of a handgun and controlled substances.The District Court of Grand Forks County denied Gothberg's motion to suppress evidence, finding that he had consented to the officers entering his apartment and that the emergency exception to the warrant requirement applied. The court also concluded that the plain view and inevitable discovery doctrines did not apply because no items were seized until a warrant was obtained. Gothberg conditionally pled guilty to six counts, including drug-related offenses and child endangerment, and appealed the decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Gothberg's affirmative conduct, such as calling 911, opening the door, and describing the situation, indicated consent for the officers to enter his apartment. The court also found that the officers' entry and search were justified under the consent exception to the warrant requirement. The court concluded that the district court's findings were supported by sufficient competent evidence and were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. View "State v. Gothberg" on Justia Law

James Thesing was charged with domestic violence in November 2022 and released under a pre-dispositional order prohibiting contact with the alleged victim. In March 2023, he was arrested for violating this order by initiating contact with the protected person while in custody. He was charged with two counts of violating the order, class A misdemeanors. In July 2023, the original domestic violence charge was dismissed, and the pre-dispositional order was terminated.Thesing filed a motion to dismiss one count in November 2023, arguing that the order only applied while he was released from custody. The District Court of Cass County denied the motion in December 2023, concluding that the order remained in effect after his arrest, was not contingent on release, and met constitutional requirements. Thesing entered a conditional guilty plea in February 2024, preserving his right to appeal, and the other count was dismissed. He appealed in March 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on statutory interpretation. The court found that the statute, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-02, unambiguously allowed the pre-dispositional order to remain in effect even after Thesing was taken back into custody. The court also noted that the order itself explicitly prohibited contact by any means and was to terminate only upon case disposition unless modified by the court.Thesing's argument that the order was a condition of release and did not apply while he was in custody was rejected. The court also dismissed his claim that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, noting that his brief lacked supporting arguments and citations. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Thesing" on Justia Law

In 2014, Lorry Van Chase was convicted of gross sexual imposition and sentenced to forty years in prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Chase filed three applications for postconviction relief. In his first application, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and a conflict of interest, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. His second application was dismissed as barred by res judicata and misuse of process. The third application was initially dismissed but later remanded for proper procedure.The District Court of Rolette County held an evidentiary hearing on Chase’s third application, which included claims of newly discovered evidence and improper jury contact. Chase conceded that his trial attorney had received the medical record before trial, thus it could not be considered newly discovered evidence. Regarding the jury contact, a juror testified that a uniformed person entered the jury room and stated that a unanimous decision was required. However, the juror could not definitively identify the person, and no other jurors corroborated the claim.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court found that the medical record was not newly discovered evidence as it was available before the trial. The court also upheld the district court’s finding that the juror’s testimony about improper jury contact was not credible, noting inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Chase’s application for postconviction relief based on these grounds. View "Chase v. State" on Justia Law

Jorge Villazana was charged with reckless endangerment, terrorizing, and attempted murder following an incident on May 4, 2022, where he allegedly pointed a firearm at two individuals and shot one of them in the face. The State filed notices to use prior acts of domestic violence and threatening text messages as evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b). Villazana moved to exclude this evidence, but the district court deferred ruling until trial. During the trial, the court admitted the text messages without objection and allowed testimony about prior domestic violence over Villazana's objection.The District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, presided over the trial. The jury found Villazana guilty of reckless endangerment with the use of a firearm and terrorizing without the use of a firearm, but acquitted him of attempted murder. Villazana appealed, arguing that the district court erred in admitting the 404(b) evidence, causing juror confusion and an inconsistent verdict.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimonial evidence of domestic violence under Rule 404(b) because the third prong of the test was not met at the time of admission. However, the error was deemed harmless as sufficient evidence of the crimes charged was later presented. The court also found that Villazana waived any argument regarding the text messages' admissibility by not objecting at trial.Regarding the alleged inconsistent verdict, the Supreme Court concluded that the jury's findings were not legally inconsistent. The jury could rationally find Villazana guilty of terrorizing without the use of a firearm based on the evidence presented. The court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Villazana" on Justia Law

In May 2020, Daniel Samaniego was charged with gross sexual imposition, a class AA felony. During his trial in May 2021, a detective testified about attempting to interview Samaniego, leading to an objection from Samaniego’s counsel, which was sustained. The jury found Samaniego guilty. Post-trial, a juror indicated that the jury discussed Samaniego’s decision not to testify. Samaniego’s counsel did not move for a new trial based on this potential jury misconduct.Samaniego appealed the criminal judgment in September 2021, arguing insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, noting the prosecutorial misconduct claim was not preserved for appeal. In May 2023, Samaniego filed for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not preserving the prosecutorial misconduct issue and not moving for a new trial based on jury misconduct. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the application in February 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Samaniego did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different but for his counsel’s alleged errors. The court found no prosecutorial misconduct in the detective’s testimony and noted that the jury’s discussion about Samaniego not testifying did not constitute juror misconduct under the law. The court concluded that Samaniego’s trial counsel’s actions did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and that Samaniego was not prejudiced by these actions. View "Samaniego v. State" on Justia Law

Thomas Roller was charged with multiple offenses, including terrorizing an adult victim, reckless endangerment, criminal mischief, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and domestic violence. The unauthorized use of a vehicle charge was dismissed before trial. The jury found Roller guilty of the remaining charges. Roller contested the jury instruction on criminal mischief, arguing it allowed for a non-cognizable offense, and also challenged his sentence as a habitual offender, claiming the court improperly considered his prior convictions.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, presided over the trial. The jury instructions defined criminal mischief as willfully damaging property and intentionally causing pecuniary loss over $100. Roller did not object to these instructions during the trial. The jury convicted Roller on all counts. At the presentencing hearing, the court took judicial notice of Roller’s prior convictions, despite his initial objection, which he later withdrew. The court found Roller met the criteria for habitual offender status and sentenced him accordingly.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the jury instructions did not constitute obvious error, as the terms "willfully" and "intentionally" were not legally incongruent. The court also found that the district court did not err in taking judicial notice of Roller’s prior convictions for sentencing purposes, as the rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing procedures. The court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion and did not impose an illegal sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "State v. Roller" on Justia Law

Trent Rolland was involved in a traffic accident with a minor, who later alleged that Rolland had been communicating with her via SnapChat, sending explicit messages and photographs, and had sexual contact with her. Rolland was charged with luring a minor and other related offenses. During his arrest, his smartphone was seized, and he was taken to the Richland County jail, where he was read his Miranda rights and subsequently made several incriminating admissions during an interview. Law enforcement obtained a warrant to search his phone, leading to additional charges.The District Court of Sargent County, Southeast Judicial District, presided over by Judge Nicholas D. Thornton, denied Rolland's motions to suppress evidence and his motion to dismiss based on his competency to stand trial. Rolland had undergone multiple psychological evaluations, with conflicting opinions on his competency. The court overruled Rolland's objection to the timeliness of one of the competency reports and found him competent to stand trial. Rolland entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the judgment, arguing errors in the competency determination and the denial of his motions to suppress evidence.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court did not provide adequate findings to support its decision on Rolland's competency. The Supreme Court noted that the district court's statements were merely a recitation of the legal standard without explaining the basis for its decision. The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and remanded the case for 60 days for the district court to determine whether Rolland was fit to proceed before entering his conditional guilty plea, based on the record at the time of his motion to dismiss. The district court must conduct an additional competency hearing to assess the evaluators' testimony and credibility. View "State v. Rolland" on Justia Law